EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Major help needed - which ski to buy tomorrow - Atomic R10,R11,Salomon Crossmax, etc
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Major help needed - which ski to buy tomorrow - Atomic R10,R11,Salomon Crossmax, etc

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
A little background first. I'm an early thirties upper intermediate level skier. I haven't skied for the past few years because my girlfriend (now wife) isn't a skier. I'm looking at heading back out to the mountains (Whistler, Banff) this winter and would like to pick up some new skis. The last set of skis I bought was about 8 yrs ago and they were a set of K2 MSL's (205cm). So I'm definitely do for a new set.

There are a lot of great deals in Canada right now on skis. I think a lot of last years models are being blown out.

Today I went and looked at a number of skis. I told the salesguy by ability level and said I was looking for a good all-mountain ski without breaking the bank. I ski mainly blues and blacks but avoid the double blacks. I like some moguls, powder when there is some, and sometimes just cruising the blues. The salesguy showed me the following:

Atomic R 10 ($399 Canadian with tax)
Atomic R 11 ($399 Canadian with tax)
Rossignol RPM 90 ($399 Canadian with tax)
Salomon Crossmax 10 ($799 Canadian with tax)

The Salomon are a fair bit more and would be about the upper limit of my budget. I would go with them if the consensus was that they are the best ski of the bunch and worth the extra $$$.

I also spotted a set of K2 Omni 4.5's at another shop. They would be around $600 Canadian with bindings.

I'm 6 feet tall, 170lbs.

Any input would be greatly appreciated. There is a no tax sale going on for the next couple of days and I will probably go ahead and buy some if you guys think that these skis would be suitable.

Thanks in advance!!
post #2 of 29
The deal on the Atomics is an insanely good one. I don't like the Crossmax at all but don't know the Rossi's.
At your weight/height I think you'd be happiest on the R10 and they're awesome skis.
post #3 of 29
Of those, definitely the R10 for you. Is that $399 with or without bindings?
post #4 of 29
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the input so far. The $399 was with bindings - not sure which ones though...
post #5 of 29

Length!!!

Length Matters...(make sure the sticks are of the matching length for you!...given your weight)
post #6 of 29
Thread Starter 
I believe that guy at the shop was suggesting 165cm skis (for the R 10's and R 11's) - sound about right?
post #7 of 29
Yep, that should work. With bindings, that really is a steal! I have a couple of buddies who got the R:11 at the end of last season and really love them... (They're a level or so above you in skill and weight.)
post #8 of 29
go 170-175cm. Look at the Ski Magazine web site for reviews also.
You might want to see if you can find a set of last years Elan M-8 fusions.
post #9 of 29
Those Atomics are pretty beefy skis...
post #10 of 29
A 170cm R10 would be the ski for you. More forgiving than the R11. The Atomics don't come in a 165 only 160, 170 or 180.

Again go for the R10m in a 170cm. A friend of mine skis them & loves them. I am 6'0 180lbs. skied forever and ski the R11 in a 180.
post #11 of 29
I agree with Atomicman. R10, 170cm. It will allow you more forgiveness as you transition to shaped skis. If you are really at the top of your game you might be able to overpower them in a season or so, but its not likely. It is a ski that will let you grow as much as you will ever need to. The advantage is that unlike the R:11, it has lower end capabilities. Enjoy them, good luck.
Later
GREG
post #12 of 29
Thread Starter 
I really appreciate all the feedback. I'm glad I came to the forum before making a bad decision in the shop.

I'm going to go back tomorrow am and try and get the R 10's in a 170cm. It looked liked they had quite a few sizes left today. I'll post here and let you guys know how it turns out.

Thanks again.
post #13 of 29
I would agree with Aman and SSH, the r10 in a 170 would be right for you. I too skied the 11.20 in a 180 as my favorite for a couple of years and own last years r11 puls. Both would be pushing you around probably. I think the R10 would outlive the RPMs, and would be more versatile off piste maybe. Personaly I have never skied a K2 that I wanted to buy. That's just me though, I know many really good skiers that like them. I always seem t oend up on atomics. Later, RicB.
post #14 of 29
Hey KutterMax.

Take a look at the Atomic SX-9 also. They are on sale this weekend at your local Sportschek store. The sale price without binding is $399.00 CDN.
The other bonus is that you don't have to pay PST or GST this weekend only.
The SX-9s are great skis and the price is just right. I would take the SX-9 over the Crossmaax 10 anyday.
www.sportchek.ca
post #15 of 29
Thread Starter 
OK, I went back to the shop this morning and picked up some skis.

First thing - there was some confusion over the price. The skis were $499 Canadian with tax (15% tax in Ontario), not $399 as I thought. This was my error. The Atomic SX-9 was $399.

Second, even though I was told yesterday it included the binding, the salesguy was wrong on this point. Only the R8 included a binding.

The recommended the Atomic 412 binding for the R10. The bindings are going for $249 but after some back and forth, they dropped to $149 with tax.

So at the end of the day I got the Atomic R:10 at 170cm, the Atomic 412 binding and install for $569 Canadian before tax ($654 after 15% tax added on).

I think $569 is still a pretty good deal for the setup - not as good as $399, but not bad AND I got the skis that seemed to be the consensus recommendation here - so I'm really happy about that.

Now I have to plan the trip to Whistler. Anyone know of any good websites for Canadian ski packages??

Thanks again for the help!
post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB
I would agree with Aman and SSH, the r10 in a 170 would be right for you. I too skied the 11.20 in a 180 as my favorite for a couple of years and own last years r11 puls. Both would be pushing you around probably. I think the R10 would outlive the RPMs, and would be more versatile off piste maybe. Personaly I have never skied a K2 that I wanted to buy. That's just me though, I know many really good skiers that like them. I always seem t oend up on atomics. Later, RicB.
With you all the way on K2 & I am from Washington1
post #17 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by KutterMax
...so I'm really happy about that.

Now I have to plan the trip to Whistler. Anyone know of any good websites for Canadian ski packages??

Thanks again for the help!
Bummer about the prices, but...

Get ready to smile! Enjoy!
post #18 of 29
Thread Starter 
Just a quick update:

SportsChek in Canada today had a flyer in the newspaper. The Atomic R10, R11, SX9, and SX11 are all now $399 Canadian. As of tomorrow there is no tax (basically equivalent of 15% off).

I paid $499 (no tax) for my skis last week. I went by SportsChek today and they credited me back $100 for the skis since they are now on sale! I was very happy with that.

So if anyone in Canada is looking for these skis, now would be a good time to get them. Also note what I said above, you should be able to get them down on the Atomic bindings depending what they are selling them for.

Looking forward to trying out my new skis soon. We are booked to go to Whistler on January 23 for a week. I'm going to try and get up to Tremblant before then.
post #19 of 29
I think you did pretty good for $554 canadian, buying everything locally.

I just bought a pair of R11's. I got the ski's locally for $252 USD(after tax, after my 10% discount at that store). I don't know why they were selling the R:11's so cheap, it was the only pair they had at their swap. And the store I bought them at is historically pretty expensive. I got CR:412's off ebay for $135 USD, 147.50 after shipping. Much to my dismay right after I bought my bindings, they could have been had for $80 on ebay. All total I paid $400 US for brand new R11's and CR:412's.
post #20 of 29
I'd appreciate it if you'd share your thoughts on the R-10's when you get a chance to try them out.
Last winter I tried shapes last year after a 10 year hiatus from the slopes. Then last summer I got a sweet deal on same setup you have but bought them sight unseen and haven't used them yet. I'm 1" shorter and 10-15lbs heavier than you, level 7-8 but will I do a double diamond if it's not a cliff or bumped up much. Most of my time is spent on groomers but I have a more advanced friend who likes some glades and off-piste.
Thought maybe I'd try to trade them for something else with a little more beef, maybe a 5*, R-11 or RX-8. But then again, maybe they're just the ticket to learn on for the rest of this year.
I haven't had a chance to demo anything this year and due to the 412 bindings being out-of-spec and having to be returned to Atomic for replacements I've been riding my old Dynastars so far this week.

Thanks in advance for any input.
post #21 of 29
At our level, Chaz, you may find the R10 more to your liking. My level 7-8 friend throught that the 11 was a bit much. But, YMMV.
post #22 of 29
Thanks, ssh. The shop I left my skis at said they should have the bindings back and mounted in time for me to try them out on Monday. And try them I will - since I didn't even get started (or should I say born again) until last Feb. I'll have plenty of time to get used to them and demo some others. Also get some new fitted boots.

Thanks again, I really appreciate your help.
post #23 of 29

R11 length recommendation?

I've been reading this thread with some interest. I think I am advanced/expert level, 6'1", 195lbs, currently skiing Atomic Beta Race 9.20 Carv 160cm.
I will be traveling regularly to Denver/Colorado Springs this winter and am thinking about adding Atomic R11's. I'm trying to figure out which length would make more sense (160, 170, or 180). I would appreciate any thoughts/guidance/etc. Thnx.
post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by mqwebnet
I've been reading this thread with some interest. I think I am advanced/expert level, 6'1", 195lbs, currently skiing Atomic Beta Race 9.20 Carv 160cm.
I will be traveling regularly to Denver/Colorado Springs this winter and am thinking about adding Atomic R11's. I'm trying to figure out which length would make more sense (160, 170, or 180). I would appreciate any thoughts/guidance/etc. Thnx.
I'd go with either the 170 or the 180. I tend to lean on the longer side, but I'm a little taller and a little heavier than you (6'4" and 210 lbs.). The 170 would give you a bit more maneuverability and won't sacrifice much on most surfaces. For off-piste, the 180 will serve you better, with more float.
post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by mqwebnet
I've been reading this thread with some interest. I think I am advanced/expert level, 6'1", 195lbs, currently skiing Atomic Beta Race 9.20 Carv 160cm.
I will be traveling regularly to Denver/Colorado Springs this winter and am thinking about adding Atomic R11's. I'm trying to figure out which length would make more sense (160, 170, or 180). I would appreciate any thoughts/guidance/etc. Thnx.
I am 6'0 185-190 & ski the 180cm. The Beta-Puls ski is a lot more user friendly than the R11.20 was. Longitudinally softer but torsionally stiffer. You get better float in the crud & Pow & also be able to RIP on the hard stuff. The 170cm might be more fun, but only on groomers.
post #26 of 29
Thanks so much for the replies. I'm leaning toward the 180's as I have the Beta Race Carves in 160, so, the 180 would seem good complement for more off-piste and Pow skiing. The only "gotcha" is that I've found the 160's for $100 less than the 180's, but, from what I've read so far, I need to prioritize length over cost.
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by mqwebnet
Thanks so much for the replies. I'm leaning toward the 180's as I have the Beta Race Carves in 160, so, the 180 would seem good complement for more off-piste and Pow skiing. The only "gotcha" is that I've found the 160's for $100 less than the 180's, but, from what I've read so far, I need to prioritize length over cost.
I think 160cm is way too short for you in that ski.
there is a reason the 160cm is so cheap, very few people ski on it!

By the way I have a pair of 160cm R11.20 with Xentrix 6.14 for sale $250 with bindings! if you really want a 160. The R11.20 maybe a little better in that length for you than the R11 Beta-Puls because it is a bit beefier!
post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
I think 160cm is way too short for you in that ski.
there is a reason the 160cm is so cheap, very few people ski on it!

By the way I have a pair of 160cm R11.20 with Xentrix 6.14 for sale $250 with bindings! if you really want a 160. The R11.20 maybe a little better in that length for you than the R11 Beta-Puls because it is a bit beefier!
Thanks again. I don't necessarily want 160cm; I was more intrigued (?) by the price. BTW, I skied Vail with my brother and his brother-in-law, who is local and outstanding skier. I don't know if he's "old school", but, he favors much longer skis; I think he ended up with 190cm R11's. His first choice is fresh powder, then, trees, but, he can ski anything; I know as we tried to keep up with him (and he was taking it easy for us). I keep reading that with the newer shape technology, its better to "short". Yet, after scanning many of the forum entries, it certainly seems like there is a consensus that for off-piste/Pow/crud/groomers the Atomic R11's in 180 are very well liked/preferred, and, not recommended to go shorter.
post #29 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by mqwebnet
Thanks again. I don't necessarily want 160cm; I was more intrigued (?) by the price. BTW, I skied Vail with my brother and his brother-in-law, who is local and outstanding skier. I don't know if he's "old school", but, he favors much longer skis; I think he ended up with 190cm R11's. His first choice is fresh powder, then, trees, but, he can ski anything; I know as we tried to keep up with him (and he was taking it easy for us). I keep reading that with the newer shape technology, its better to "short". Yet, after scanning many of the forum entries, it certainly seems like there is a consensus that for off-piste/Pow/crud/groomers the Atomic R11's in 180 are very well liked/preferred, and, not recommended to go shorter.
180cm seems to fit a very large range of skiers. 180cm is not what I would consider long at your size, but 190 would be. I skied on a 190 R11.20 a couple of years back to back with my 180's and they were absolute tanks. Hated them,, way to long!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Major help needed - which ski to buy tomorrow - Atomic R10,R11,Salomon Crossmax, etc